Today, World Habitat Day is being celebrated across the globe with the theme of urban mobility. This theme has bearings on social, economic and environmental aspects of urban dwellers. In its simple form, urban mobility refers to the ease with which one can move about in an urban area. But a closer look reveals that the concept is a far more complex, a full discussion of which is beyond the scope of this article. Issues such as pedestrian rights, ambience, quality of public transportation, energy cost, traffic management, congestion, pollution, safety, environmental condition and accessibility of differently able people to transportation continue to affect our daily lives. There are no quick fixes to such issues, and that is perhaps why the concept of accessibility has found a strong place among urban planners and policymakers alike. [break]
Characteristics and issues
In Nepal, urban centers tend to reveal contrasting mobility characteristics depending on the ecological region. A recent report (ADB, 2013) on Biratnagar Sub-Metropolitan City, which has recorded travel pattern of 1,404 households, reveals that rickshaws, bicycles or walking are the preferred travel modes within the city—especially for short trips. Some use motorcycles, while only a small number use tempos and personal cars and jeeps. For longer travels, public buses and motorcycles are the dominant travel methods.
The preferences of travel modes are found to vary according to trip purposes. Walking remains the popular mode for the school children, followed by cycles and school buses. The majority of workers use bicycles and motorcycles, or walk to work. Rickshaws are widely used among shoppers. Some transportation methods were found to be gender sensitive. Bicycles were dominantly used by males, while women were the primary users of rickshaws. The report also reveals dissatisfaction among women regarding the quality of public buses.
Meanwhile, a similar report (JICA, 2012) on the Kathmandu Valley reveals that walking, motorcycle and bus are the primary travel methods. Cars accounted for a marginal share with 4 percent. However, within two decades (1991- 2011), the figure of 41 percent (people who walk) had declined by 12 percent from the previous figure of 53 percent. Bicycles are now used by a marginal 1.5 percent, down from 6.5 percent.
In contrast, motorcycles have become far more popular, with usage increasing from 9 percent to 26 percent during the same time. Of more than half a million vehicles registered in Kathmandu Valley from 2000-2010, about three quarters were motorcycles. Motorcycles are found to be owned even among low income households.
One worrying aspect of the Report (MoPIT and ADB, 2010) is that during 2009-2010, pedestrians consisted of 45 percent of traffic related fatalities and 40 percent of serious injuries in Kathmandu. This begs the question: What can be done to ensure the safety of these people? This in turn leads to more questions. Should we be doing more to get people off the streets and onto faster and safer forms of transport? Or should we be allocating more pedestrian areas in the already crowded streets of Kathmandu?
Biratnagar and Kathmandu offer two distinct mobility characteristics. Kathmandu Valley thrives on motorized transport modes unlike Biratnagar. This is perhaps explained by a number of factors including greater prosperity, its greater population size and density, and an extended metropolitan suburb. In the Valley, motorization is systematically phasing out non-motorized systems which are more equitable, accessible, and environment friendly.
The above comparison also offers insight into the growth of private vehicles. Increasing household income explains the growth only partially. Inaccessibility of public transportation and lack of quality and facilities are other important factors. The daily experiences of the Valley indicate that the growth of low-capacity private vehicles has implications on increasing congestion and reducing overall efficiency and environment quality of a city. Notwithstanding, the comparison reveals that transportation technology and infrastructures are required for a city to grow and add to its productivity and prosperity.
Travelers’ behavior requires a close attention. Travel mode varies with the trip purposes, but also varies with the location of opportunities and destinations. It means that spatial design and layout are critical in shaping travel behavior.
Way forward
With the growth of cities, advantages of central locations tend to diminish due to congestion. That is why investment on efficient public transportation is of paramount importance for the efficient functioning of cities. Hence, metropolitan areas increasingly rely on BRT (Bus Rapid Transit), LRT (Light Rail Transit), MRT (Mass Rapid Transit), or a combination thereof. Cities have used BRT with dedicated or guided bus-ways, which improve the efficiency of public transportation over private vehicles. BRT is also more affordable than other forms of mass transit. Kathmandu Valley can opt for BRT with dedicated bus lanes in the ring road, inter-city highways or arterials.
The prospects of LRT can also be examined in large cities or metropolitan regions of the country. This option needs a closer look as rising energy cost already results in great transportation and social cost. This has greater social and economic ramifications, especially among the poor. Since households are overburdened with increased transportation costs, it renders locally produced goods uncompetitive. On the other hand, LRT may prove to be a pragmatic alternative when Nepal attains an electricity surplus after (supposedly) less than a decade. Cities elsewhere have used LRT as a tool to guide the growth in designated locations around railway stations. Indeed, experiences have shown that benefit of public transportation, including LRT, can be optimized when it is integrated with other policy options such as BRT, urban containment, parking policy, and congestion pricing. Furthermore, all fragmented public transport operators can be brought within a single umbrella for coordinated and efficient operation of public transportation.
It is imperative that the transportation policy provide fair and just choices on mobility, consisting of a coordinated non-motorized system and motorization. In future cities, accessibility should be emphasized as much as mobility. Already, planners and policymakers have begun advocating and practicing various planning approaches like TOD (Transit Oriented Development), mixed land use, and compact settlement. Networking of pedestrian and bicycle paths needs prioritization, while also facilitating other non-motorized transport modes. The idea is to promote not only a meticulous transportation system, but also a pleasing city environment. This would not only reduce the need to travel but also promote walking and bicycling which improve social, environmental and economic prosperity.
Of course, in the context of Nepal, where a car or even a motorcycle is a symbol of financial health, social pressures make transitioning back to bicycles and walking an uphill battle, despite health and environmental benefits. Even so, as the city and its people evolve, planners should increasingly look into organizing the city’s landscape in poly-centric self-contained urban nodes—interconnected by an efficient transit system. All these ideas can be put into action only through a multi-sectoral approach. It is my hope that soon the slow march towards this goal can begin.
The author is a Joint Secretary at the Ministry of Urban
Development
msubba1960@gmail.com
Related story
Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Urban Development in Nepal
